On 2023-03-16 11:52:47 +0100, Dominique Devienne wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 11:15 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > čt 16. 3. 2023 v 9:55 odesílatel Dominique Devienne <ddevie...@gmail.com> > napsal: > That's a nice way to put it Pavel. > And to have it both ways, use COPY in binary protocol? [...] > The performance benefit will be minimal ([...]). > > COPY matters on INSERT for sure performance-wise. > So why wouldn't COPY matter for SELECTs too?
COPY is faster than a bunch of INSERTs because each INSERT has some
overhead: It needs to be parsed (if you PREPAREd the INSERT you need to
parse the EXECUTE command instead) and planned. But most importantly you
have a round trip time between the client and the server. With COPY you
incur that overhead only once.
(Which reminds me that I should benchmark INSERT with lots of VALUES
against COPY some time.)
With COPYing the output of a SELECT I don't see any savings. On the
contrary, it's an extra step.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | h...@hjp.at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
